Some semblance of fear for your opponent is always healthy. But here are some very interesting stats I came across in Colts. com forum. which I felt would be worthwhile sharing:

Quote:

On paper we're abysmal..but we are winning and that all that matters…right? Well, its a miracle that we are even winning and if you look at the statistics below you can't even imagine that our record is accurate. Some will point to Andrew Luck and say he deserves MVP. Some will say an easy schedule. Others may say that we have a talented GM (that has made us all look foolish with our criticism of some of his moves). Others may point to Chuck Pagano's illness and the team rallying.

Check out these statistics and ask yourself…how are we winning, exactly?

Outscored with a winning record:
Last week, the colts are only the 5th team in NFL history to have won 8 games by scoring less than 40 points more than they gave up.

Week 12
PF 265
PA 305

This difference has gotten better thanks to us outscoring the Titans. 292/329
Turnover Differential more fitting for a 2-11 team:
The colts are the only team in 2012 with a winning record and a negative (-16) Turnover Differential. In fact the closest thing to a winning team with a -10 TO differential is Dallas with a 6-6 record. Thats a full +6 WORSE than us and they have a .500 winning percentage. To put it in perspective only the Hapless Eagles (-18) and K.C (-21) are worse than the Colts and they only have 5 wins combined. If it wasn't for our Pick 6 on Locker, we'd be -17.

We are used to getting a lot of turnovers from Freeney, but this year his numbers are horrible. He has 5 tackles and 2 sacks. No FFs for Freeney this year.

TO differential is the biggest thing bookies use to create point spreads and I'm surprised we get the spreads we do with out TO.

Surprising QB statistics:
If you look at Andrew Lucks stats vs Robert Griffins stats you would think that RG3 was the colts QB and Andrew Luck was QB of the Washington Redskins. But this isn't about RG3, this is about the Colts and it would only be fair to compare our production at QB to what we had last year…right? ok, well here it is below.

I won't label the stats, but try guessing which are Andrew Lucks stats and which are the Coalition of Collins, Painter and Orlovsky.

New Roster:
According to Arians, before the pats game half the players in the locker room raised their hands to testify it was their first time in Foxboro. However according to Bill Polian the colts are fielding 60% of the players from their last super bowl. According to a CBS statistic shown this weekend Grigson brought in 35 new players. I put that at slightly more than half of our roster is new.

Luck or Lucky?
Last week vs the Lions… with fans leaving the stadium and the game all but wrapped up, Calvin Johnson dropped two HUGE passes in the 4th quarter, both on 3rd down conversions, both right in his hands. On paper it looks like Butler did a great job. On film its a different story. Butler was burned on both instances. The ball was right in Johnsons hands in both instances and he dropped both passes resulting in punts in both instances. No one attributes our comeback to these dropped passes by the highest rated player in Madden 13 (99).

If those OT games we were in go the other way (which does not require much imagination), we are tied with them for the AFC South division lead ? Is there really that much difference between them and us ? I don't know, but I just wonder ?

I've been guilty of this myself. Using stats to make my argument. However, this (I think) shows us how that isn't always valid. 18 TDs vs 14 does not equal a +7 win differential.

It depends on the situation. In a one score game, Luck is more dangerous than Painter, Orlovsky, & Collins. We need to make sure we are not in a one score game with these guys.

Their -16 TO compared to our +12 tells me they make more mistakes than we do. But it could also mean they take more chances. That could spell trouble for us, if we're not playing good football like we haven't been for the last 6 or 7 weeks on the back end.

It's not that I think there is nothing to worry about, or that I think it is impossible for us to lose this game. Just like every other game, you ain't won it until you won it.

I can think of several reasons the Colts should win, but I can think of even more reasons we should.

If those OT games we were in go the other way (which does not require much imagination), we are tied with them for the AFC South division lead ? Is there really that much difference between them and us ? I don't know, but I just wonder ?

Yeah that's a big difference. It's the same difference between the Patriots & us.

It's not about passing yards, sacks, ypc against. It's about doing what it takes to win. The Colts are as talented as any team in the league, so are the Raiders, the Cheifs, & the Jags.

Being able to pull it all together & get Ws is the difference between winning & losing in the NFL. That's what separates them from us & us and the Patriots.

You can take away that Forsett TD in the Lions game, nothing's to say we wouldn't score anyway. It's not like the Lions were stopping us. We were (most likely) going to do what it took to win regardless.

The Patriots just put it on us & we weren't going to win that game. We could have got all the PI & OPI calls go our way & they would have done something else to still win.

2 things Fiddler: (1) how did you rate the Texans chances in Foxboro BEFORE the game Monday night, and (2) you need to change your handle to "The Joker".

Before the game I thought the Patriots were the better team & it would take a methodically efficient offense to keep Brady off the field to win. Limit their offensive possessions & force a stop on a few of them.

But when our offense got shut out for the two & a half qtrs, I realize we are not in that league. That's the difference I'm talking about.

Watch a Colts game, not just the highlights or the final 2 minutes of a game. That team makes mistake after mistake that puts them in holes early. They'd have to play their best game of the season & we'd have to play our worse for them to win this game.

Watch a Colts game, not just the highlights or the final 2 minutes of a game. That team makes mistake after mistake that puts them in holes early. They'd have to play their best game of the season & we'd have to play our worse for them to win this game.

And don't think for a second that that can't happen.

Personally, I think we crush the Colts this coming Sunday and win our last three games and end up 14-2 for the season. But I know for a fact that the "any given Sunday" rule applies to both good and bad performances by any team.

Before the game I thought the Patriots were the better team & it would take a methodically efficient offense to keep Brady off the field to win. Limit their offensive possessions & force a stop on a few of them.

But when our offense got shut out for the two & a half qtrs, I realize we are not in that league. That's the difference I'm talking about.

Watch a Colts game, not just the highlights or the final 2 minutes of a game. That team makes mistake after mistake that puts them in holes early. They'd have to play their best game of the season & we'd have to play our worse for them to win this game.

FWIW I would only add that the Colts are comparable to Jacksonville and Detroit, and they both took us into OT.

Actually, as long as this game is during the day and not on national tv, the Colts have no chance.

Absolutely. Get these guys playing at noon, they act like there's no game they can lose. Even if they have to scramble all day long, claw their way back into the game, they get day games handled.

At night, against quality opponents? They are scared of the dark all of a sudden. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen.

I want LESS night games. In the dome at New Orleans, for the Super Bowl, the sky is blocked out. They might be able to to handle that one. But under the starry skies, at night, they are ****ty behind belief.

I suppose that's the effect of having played inside a bubble and not outside very much. They're like Ricky Bobby when he didn't know what to do with his hands.

I'm saying not. That was his argument. I provide our record to support your opinion, we're not as good as our record.

With that in mind, I'm saying the Colts aren't as good as their record. The Colts is not a better team than the Lions or the Jags & using their record is not evidence to the contrary.

The Lions probably do have a better team on paper than the Colts. I don't see any reasoning though how the Jags are better than the Colts. The Colts have one of the top offenses in the league, right behind Houston, and while their defense isn't very good it's still superior to the Jags who have the 31st worst defense. How are the Jags NOT as good as their record?